This paper talks about how to insist staying in changed mindset based on the assigned cognitive reframing principles, and finally the changed mindset become a forever psychological status by PSI model proposed by this study. P is the cognitive reframing principle of positive psychology, happiness in this case; S is self-efficacy, which plays the important role in maintaining the stress taker to psychologically stay in the changed mindset in the long run. I represent of insisting power, the mental toughness to against the adverse negative emotions. Improving university students’ stress coping skills through the psychological dynamics formed by cognitive reframing principles of positive psychology, self-efficacy, and mental toughness will help them effectively deal with stressful events. This study aims to reduce university students’ stress level by increasing their ability to cope with stress, and improving their life satisfaction by understanding the mechanism for mindset-shift of university students and proposal of the new PSI reframing model for creating a new path to let students view stressors as challenge, not hindrance. Theories adopted in this study include cognitive reframing principles, appraisal theory, hindrance-challenge theory, cognitive reframing the schema. In the introduction section, the authors will clearly depict the logics for utilization of these theories in supporting the proposed PSI model. This research was divided into two studies. Study 1 postulated that cognitive reframing principles of positive psychology, self-efficacy, and mental toughness have a positive mediating effect in the causal relationship between university students’ stress level and life satisfaction. Findings revealed that stressful life events negatively predict the level of LS. Also, PP, SE, and MT exert a positive and significant impact on the relationship between stressful life events and LS. PP strengthens individuals’ perception of stressful life events as challenges instead of hindrances. This study showed that individuals need to think positively and develop self-efficacy in order to generate mental toughness when confronted with challenges from stressful life events, and needs to have self-efficacy and confidence towards cognitive reframing principles of positive psychology in their mind, and finally form a mental toughness competence to protect the newly changed mindset in the long run.
Stress is a natural phenomenon that occurs as a response to change; this is especially common among adolescents, and demands consumption of emotional and cognitive [
Based on the results of [
Different from traditional mind change theory, this paper talks about how to insist staying in changed mindset based on the assigned cognitive reframing principles. How we create a psychological status that help us insist in changing our mind, and finally the changed mindset become a forever psychological status? This is the research purpose of this paper.
The research on appraisal theory was initiated by Magda Arnold in the 1940s, and conducted by Richard Lazarus in the 1970s. The concepts of appraisal theory is that: when things take place, people will appraise and assess the events against different criteria, and then have emotional arousal based on the appraisal results [
A frame is an unquestioned schema, beliefs, concepts, unspoken assumptions and values that people to infer meanings in a concrete manner. To cognitively reframe is like to a new frame of mind by challenging the existing beliefs, assumptions and values, look at things in different new ways [
Schemas, sometimes being understood as mental models, concepts, mental representations and knowledge structures, containing various elements such as a hierarchy, is like a conceptual filter, that affects our beliefs and values in making decisions and classifying things. People make observations, evaluate and predicts things, especially in the process of cause-effect inferences by using their favourite schemas/perspectives [
Based on the literature review results, this study proposes a PSI model (
Cognitive reframing principles: A new sets of principles that lead into new frame that works as guidance of new behavioral pattern for persons who have stress. Cognitive behavioral therapy offers one way to re-interpret things and event, that cognitive reframing, that helps transform negative events into more positive ones. In this case, PERMA serves as cognitive reframing principles; to live on those cognitive reframing principles, people need to be confidence about what they believe; so that we set up self-efficacy to be the mediator to measure its level and cognitive reframing principles (Seligman’s PERMA principles to approach happiness) level together and both variables’ influence on the mental toughness. The results indicate to be significant. Therefore, we assume that people have cognitive reframing principles and they are confident about their cognitive reframing principles so they have competence in handling stressor [
Self-efficacy in acting in the cognitive reframing principles. Self-efficacy and confidence in continuously follow on the cognitive reframing principles and practice these principles in daily life in order to acquire for-long changes in attitude, beliefs, behaviors, life quality, satisfaction, and thus reduction of stress. Self-efficacy functions in cognitive reframing: Many theories only provide a guiding principle, including the way to change mind and how to change, but what this study would like to provide is something different, that is, a long-run psychological state that people can insist in order to change their schema. The psychological state must be changed for some patients. At what point those patients can persist in making changes? Self-efficacy plays a key role. When the stress-taker has confident, he believes that what he is doing is right, power will be generated, and it will be easier for stress takers to persist in making changes.
How people can insist in changing and no returning back to the old psychological status according to the body memory and intuition which represent of the old thinking path and patterns in the brain which is easier to come back as people were in the childhood or in the young age, or say, people were educated in that old thinking path and patterns and they have experienced and used to adopt that old thinking path and patterns in the brain; but changing mind is like creating a new thinking path in their brain, which is more uncomfortable and challenging to people. Thus, insistence is hard but very important, that needs a competence called mental toughness to help and work on it. Insisting competence, which is the mental toughness to help individuals self-demanding in staying in the psychological status built up by the new principles. The insisting power becomes the mental toughness mindset of the individuals. Change-mind can be made every day. However, it is not easy to stay in a changed-mindset. With the supports from principles and confidence, the power in insisting in changes become a MT power, and forever change the psychological status.
Life satisfaction is an overall assessment of feelings and attitudes about one’s life at a particular point in time ranging from negative to positive (Buetell, 2006) [
H1: Stressful events have a negative impact on university students’ life satisfaction (LS).
Cognitive reframing principles of Positive Psychology, which is happiness in this case, was first introduced by Seligman et al. [
H2: Cognitive reframing principles of Positive Psychology (PP) positively moderates the relationship between stressful life events and life satisfaction (LS) of university students.
Albert Bandura has defined self-efficacy as one’s belief in one’s ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task. One’s sense of self-efficacy can play a major role in how one approaches goals, tasks, and challenges [
H3: Self-efficacy (SE) positively moderates the relationship between stressful life events and life satisfaction (LS) of university students.
Crust [
H4: Mental toughness (MT) positively moderates the relationship between stressful life events and life satisfaction (LS).
To understand the psychological appraisal mechanism in mindset-shift, this study investigated the relationships among cognitive reframing principles of Positive Psychology (PP), self-efficacy (SE), and mental toughness (MT) in Study 2. The succeeding paragraphs discuss the rationale in combining the three moderating variables into a continuum of mindset-shift.
Lazarus [
This study considered individuals with a high level of PP to hold a positive attitude in dealing with stress, allowing them to appraise stressful events as challenges. A positive-evaluation mindset involves emotional arousal in engaging in PP, resulting in individuals living a meaningful life with enhanced feeling of accomplishment (dimension of SE); this feeling of accomplishment and increased sense of meaning becomes an enriching experience, resulting in an even higher SE.
Mental toughness added with self-confidence in dealing with stress [
H5: Cognitive reframing principles of positive psychology (PP) significantly impacts self-efficacy (SE).
H6: Self-efficacy (SE) significantly impacts mental toughness (MT).
H7: Cognitive reframing principles of positive psychology (PP) significantly impacts mental toughness (MT).
H8: Self-efficacy (SE) mediates the relationship between cognitive reframing principles of positive psychology (PP) and mental toughness (MT).
Based on the literature review and hypotheses proposed, this study developed its conceptual research framework shown in
The causal relationship between stressful life events and LS, and the impacts of moderators, including PP, SS, and MT on the relationship between stressful life events and LS were investigated and verified using SPSS regression analysis method.
The dynamic relationship, which is the mediating effect of SE on the relationship between PP and MT, is explored and verified using SEM method.
Descriptive and comparative research designs were utilized in this study. A total of 175 university students from 3 mid-size technology universities located in mid Taiwan were recruited as participants and were asked to answer a survey questionnaire. Out of 175, 135 data samples were returned and considered valid. Participants were either in their second- or third year in the university, aged between 21 and 23 years old, mostly females (n = 98), and majority were taking English Literature and Marketing Management.
The research questionnaire has five main variables. These are explained in detail below. Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS). Holmes et al. [
Based on literature review, definitions of LS, previously developed LS scale [
The items for measuring PP were based on literature review, ideas of cognitive reframing principals of positive psychology extended from the central concepts of PERMA ideas, and definitions of PP. A total of 9 items were developed: (1) being committed to do things, (2) being energetic and active, (3) having confidence in oneself, (4) being optimistic about the future, (5) being joyful, (6) being grateful, (7) feeling appreciated, (8) showing interest in things confronted, and (9) having an acceptable attitude towards past events. The items were also rated using a 5-point Likert (1 represents extremely disagree and 5 represents extremely agree).
This study adopted the General Self-Efficacy Scale by Schwarzer et al. [
The 18-item version of MTQ developed by Clough et al. [
The results of the descriptive analysis (N = 135) are shows the mean and standard deviation (SD) for each variable are as follows: LS (M = 33.81, SD = 6.90); stressful life events (M = 224.89, SD = 178.95); SE (M = 53.04, SD = 8.61); PP (M = 30.79, SD = 6.85); and MT (M = 48.99, SD = 7.73). Meanwhile, the reliability test results are: LS (0.750), stressful life events (0.831), SE (0.908), PP (0.928), and MT (0.906). All values obtained are within the acceptable range (>0.70). The Pearson’s correlational analysis results showed that LS and stressful life events (LSE) (r = –0.17*,
This This study used SPSS for Hierarchical Multiple Regression (HMR) to test the moderating effects of SE, PP, and MT on the relationship between LS and stressful life events. To prevent multivariate covariance, the Mean Centering was adopted to adjust the values of independent variables and moderators for further computation of interaction terms. The test results of Model 1 showed that stressful life events has a significant and negative impact (β = –0.19,
When PP was added in Model 2 as a moderator, the resulting R2 reached a significant level (ΔF = 132.72,
When SE was added as a moderator in Model 2, R2 also reached a significant level (ΔF = 73.49,
When MT was added as a moderator in Model 2, the value of R2 also reached a significant level (ΔF = 45.04,
Variables | Dependent variable: LS | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||||
X | M1 | M2 | M3 | M1 | M2 | M3 | |
β | β | β | β | β | β | β | |
Independent variable (X: Life stressful events) | –0.19* | –0.02 | –0.09 | –0.13 | –0.25** | –0.28** | –0.31** |
Moderator (M1: Positive Psychology) | 0.72*** | 0.71*** | |||||
Moderator (M2: Self-Efficacy) | 0.60*** | 0.58*** | |||||
Moderator (M3: Mental Toughness) | 0.50*** | 0.49*** | |||||
Interaction Term (X × M1) | 0.30** | ||||||
Interaction Term (X × M2) | – | –0.26** | |||||
Interaction Term (X × M3) | –0.26** | ||||||
Δ |
0.037 | 0.483 | 0.344 | 0.245 | 0.036 | 0.033 | 0.036 |
Δ |
5.16* | 132.72*** | 73.49*** | 45.04*** | 7.35** | 10.71** | 6.95** |
Δ |
0.025 | 0.000 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.008 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
0.037 | 0.520 | 0.382 | 0.282 | 0.414 | 0.556 | 0.318 | |
5.16* | 71.49*** | 40.73*** | 25.96*** | 30.91*** | 54.74*** | 20.40*** | |
0.025 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Note: β is the standardized regression coefficient; *
In In this study’s model (N = 135), SE was assumed as the mediator, PP as the latent independent variable, and MT as the latent dependent variable. The SEM was utilized to explore the causal relationship among the three moderators: PP, SE, and MT (H5, H6, H7, and H8), and AMOS 22.0 with Maximum likelihood (ML) was used for estimation. The results of the model fit after adjustment, which is represented with a variety of indicators, are shown in
Goodness-of-Fit indicators | Good fit | Observed model | Appraisal |
---|---|---|---|
Absolute fit index | |||
Likelihood-Ratio χ2 | 1100.852( |
Poor | |
df | – | 614 | – |
GFI | ≥0.90 | 0.714 | Poor |
SRMR | ≥0.08 | 0.071 | Good |
RMSEA | ≤0.08 | 0.077 | Good |
Incremental fit index | |||
NFI | ≥0.90 | 0.750 | Poor |
NNFI | ≥0.90 | 0.859 | Fair |
IFI | ≥0.90 | 0.871 | Fair |
CFI | ≥0.90 | 0.870 | Fair |
Parsimony fit index | |||
PGFI | ≥0.50 | 0.624 | Good |
PNFI | ≥0.50 | 0.691 | Good |
PCFI | ≥0.50 | 0.802 | Good |
Likelihood-Ratio χ2/ |
≤ 3 or ≤ 5 (marginal) | 1.793 | Good |
Note: The indices of model fit refers to Huang (2007); Modification index (MI), releasing of PE3 ↔ PE7, PE4 ↔ SE2, MQ1 ↔ MQ22, MQ3 ↔ SE7, MQ41 ↔ MQ42, MQ42 ↔ MQ51, MQ81 ↔ MQ82, SE1 ↔ SE12, SE8 ↔ SE9, SE11 ↔ SE12, SE35 ↔ SE36, , SE36 ↔ SE37, the 12 parameters of residual covariance.
Latent variable | Observational variable | Std. factor loading | CR | AVE(%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Self-efficacy | SE1 | 0.66 | – | 0.43 | 0.90 | 0.40 |
SE2 | 0.61 | 6.55*** | 0.38 | |||
SE3 | 0.71 | 7.43*** | 0.51 | |||
SE4 | 0.81 | 8.23*** | 0.65 | |||
SE5 | 0.80 | 8.16*** | 0.64 | |||
SE6 | 0.75 | 7.74*** | 0.56 | |||
SE7 | 0.79 | 8.16*** | 0.63 | |||
SE8 | 0.70 | 7.26*** | 0.48 | |||
SE9 | 0.71 | 7.40*** | 0.51 | |||
SE10 | 0.83 | 8.45*** | 0.70 | |||
SE11 | 0.27 | 2.96*** | 0.07 | |||
SE12 | 0.19 | 2.00*** | 0.03 | |||
SE13 | 0.39 | 4.26*** | 0.15 | |||
SE14 | 0.35 | 3.80*** | 0.12 | |||
SE15 | 0.36 | 3.94*** | 0.13 | |||
Positive Psychology | PP1 | 0.76 | – | 0.57 | 0.94 | 0.63 |
PP2 | 0.88 | 10.98*** | 0.77 | |||
PP3 | 0.85 | 10.59*** | 0.73 | |||
PP4 | 0.82 | 10.18*** | 0.67 | |||
PP5 | 0.78 | 9.62*** | 0.61 | |||
PP6 | 0.77 | 9.36*** | 0.59 | |||
PP7 | 0.79 | 9.69*** | 0.63 | |||
PP8 | 0.85 | 10.58*** | 0.72 | |||
PP9 | 0.62 | 7.32*** | 0.38 | |||
Mental Toughness | ME1 | 0.63 | – | 0.39 | 0.92 | 0.46 |
ME21 | 0.49 | 5.17*** | 0.24 | |||
ME22 | 0.41 | 5.13*** | 0.17 | |||
ME3 | 0.78 | 7.51*** | 0.60 | |||
ME41 | 0.56 | 5.76*** | 0.31 | |||
ME42 | 0.78 | 7.48*** | 0.60 | |||
ME51 | 0.83 | 7.84*** | 0.69 | |||
ME52 | 0.75 | 7.31*** | 0.57 | |||
ME61 | 0.80 | 7.65*** | 0.64 | |||
ME62 | 0.64 | 6.46*** | 0.41 | |||
ME7 | 0.53 | 5.46*** | 0.28 | |||
ME81 | 0.76 | 7.39*** | 0.58 | |||
ME82 | 0.74 | 7.22*** | 0.55 |
Note: CR is Construct reliability; AVE is Average variance extracted; ***
In addition to the classic theoretical verification procedure proposed by Baron et al. [
The path coefficient a shows that PP directly and significantly predicts SE in the positive direction (βs = 0.81,
The path coefficient a × b presents PP indirectly predicting MT through SE. This study adopted the Bootstrap method to validate the significance of this indirect predicting effect. Through 1,000 repetitive sampling, the confidence interval of bias-corrected (BC) was established. The test results showed that the unstandardized indirect effect a × b Bootstrap BC 95% confidence interval is 0.25–0.77, which does not pass through 0; also, c changed from 0.77 to 0.25 of c’, with c’ being significant. The indirect effect and partial mediating effect are therefore significant since the three conditions of partial mediating effect indicated by Lazarus [
Path | Hypotheses | Ustd. coefficient β | Std. coefficient βs | Normalizedparameterestimates | Testresults | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direct Effect | ||||||
c. Positive Psychology → Mental Toughness | H7 | 0.66 | 6.27*** | 0.77 | 0.77*** | Sig. |
c'. Positive psychology → Mental Toughness | H8 | 0.22 | 2.29* | 0.25 | 0.52*** | Sig. |
a. Positive psychology → Self-efficacy | H5 | 0.71 | 6.95*** | 0.81 | 81*** | Sig. |
b. Self-efficacy → Mental Toughness | H6 | 0.63 | 4.50*** | 0.64 | 0.64*** | Sig. |
Indirect Effect§ | ||||||
a × b | 0.45 | 0.25~0.77 | 0.52 |
Note: § uses 1,000 Bootstrap samples, biased corrected methods: 95% CI of unstandardized coefficient.
To change existing schema by cognitive reframing activities. In this case, it is to find out suitable cognitive reframing principles, the principles for creating happiness, which were built up by Dr. Seligman. With self-efficacy keep, individuals will have confidence and self-efficacy in practicing that new cognitive reframing principles and finally becoming concrete behavior. Therefore, PSI model describe how to make sure the cognitive reframing results (new frame which helps update and expand the schema) can be concretely kept for long.
In this case, most of the university students who have experienced stresses may view stressors either challenges or hindrance. Through the PSI process proposed by this study, a new continuum will be formed, which help individuals create a new appraisal system. This new appraisal system also helps the individuals more likely to view hindrance stressor as challenge stressor. That is likely to lead individuals who often confronted stress in their daily life to enjoy higher level of positive consequences such as life satisfaction. Thus, the negative stress is no more such suffering construct to them. On the other hand, it is even some more challenging to them so that life could become more meaningful, which is part of the condition for positive emotion.
Also, the research results of this study showed that individuals need to think positively (strive for a meaningful life, uphold positive emotions, participate in engagements, experience feeling of accomplishment, and become involved in supportive relationships), and develop self-confidence (SE) to generate MT when confronted with challenges from stressful life events.
Previous studies have explored several mediating factors for independent and dependent variables; however, none have integrated and further investigated the relationships among the moderators. This study innovatively contributes in the research flow, including bionic technology, following the true flow of mindset by combining three moderators and examining their relationships through SEM. The significant partial mediating effect illustrates that individual’s thinking pattern is generated from one idea to another; only one variable, PP, was found to be insufficient in helping individuals cope with stressful life events and in transforming hindrances into challenges. This study also found that SE plays an important role in coping with stress. Individuals need to be confident in knowing that they have a correct and powerful mindset, which will result in MT continuously and positively appraising stressful events as challenges and not as hindrances, allowing them to handle challenges with confidence.
The present study also contributes to the theoretical development of stress management psychology with extensive connection to CH model, especially in the development of a comprehensive, positive appraisal mechanism. Cavanaugh et al. [
With the rapid development and growth of the economy, internet technology, and environmental changes, individuals struggle to obtain good education and professional training from well-esteemed colleges and universities in order to increase competitiveness. This results in an overwhelming pressure from school, peers, and family, leading to stress. Adolescents aged between 18 and 24 studying in colleges and universities need to work hard in building new relationships, experience loneliness from being away from their families, and suffer from stress due to academic pressure. Beginning 1980s, it was found that university students’ psychological problems are becoming more serious. Recent studies have shown that the mean age of university students suffering from bipolar disorder was lowered to 19 years old from 32 years old a century ago. Therefore, life adjustment methods need to be developed to help these students cope with stress and prevent mental health problems. The purpose of the present study was to determine the factors that influence the decrease in the stress level of university students to increase their life satisfaction despite the pressure they receive academically and non-academically. According to the results of this study, strengthening university students’ stress coping skills through the psychological dynamics formed by PP, SE, and MT will help them effectively deal with stressful events, and will decrease the possibility of acquiring mental health problems; thus, reducing the possible expenditure in the national health insurance. Establishing an effective school support system is also another way of helping students cope with stress.
Qualitative research study be done to have a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative assessment of the variables involved. Quantitative research method is good at measuring and confirming the path between dimensions statistically, but psychologists’ practical understanding towards people’s thinking pattern and dynamic mindset can be well illustrated using quantitative methods such as detailed interviews. Also, the sample size is students and the size are small, it is suggest that next study had better to use company sample with more than 200.
It is confirmed that ethical approval is no need for this study since it involves no physical experiment and that participants have given consent for their data to be used in the research.